I don't see any particular problem with a large government and taxation, so it's not a lose-lose. The key element is how government is applied. The idea that the size of the government and the freedom of the populace are opposing properties is a myth. We form societies because we are social animals. We form governments because societies are complex and difficult to manage.

Really, serious question, what is the "given" reason for the obsession with stopping Obamacare? And don't tell me that it'll cost too much. We waste more money on defense spending on shiat that we'll never even use and foreign aid that doesn't benefit us in the least than we ever will on health care for our own citizens.

The right wing hates poor people. The right wing wants poor people to starve, suffer, and die. To them, the poor are sinners who are being punished by God with poverty. The more money you have, the more Godly you are.

Assistance programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Obamacare thwart "God's Plan" to torment and exterminate the poor. It actually keeps them alive. It dares to lessen their suffering.

And to the right wing, this is an abomination unto their God (the God that loves war but hates sex. The God that pays more attention to the rich's greed than the cries of a starving child).

The more this goes on, the more I'm reminded of 9/11. The reactionary Qaedans gripe with the U.S. was mostly peripheral to the larger issue of wanting to be taken seriously as an alternative to the neocolonial cronyism of the ruling class in Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and other similar countries. They pulled off that attack to bolster their populist street cred there. The reactionary TeaBaggers want to pull off this default to show the right side of the U.S. political spectrum that they are a credible and powerful alternative to the plutocratic cronyism of the big business lobby. They are pulling off this attack to show their populist street cred here.

Except that they are not an alternative to the plutocratic cronyism of the big business lobby, they are the puppets of that lobby. Most of them, anyway.

There are a few who simply want very little federal government, even to the point of not having Social Security and such. Those people are simply delusional, they want everything down to the level of 'do it yourself'. No money for local, state, or federal government. So some kind of anarchy I suppose where roads are built by what exactly? These people simply didn't think their sh*t through.

The vast, vast majority of them are just fanatics or hypocrites with no idea about what it takes to keep the country functioning, to feed and clothe the elderly and the underprivileged, to keep roads functioning, to keep food safe, to monitor and prevent diseases, and so on. Many of them are just plain old racists and authoritarians who want to see the world burn without understanding what that actually means.

FTFA:And DeMint is helping to build an impressive and apparently permanent infrastructure of fundraising organizations with the avowed goal of displacing the GOP's traditional business backers. The goal, as Needham put it, is "to take on cronyism and the way K Street [lobbyists] run this town." But they should expect some push-back. Some of those K Street Republican lobbyists told me last week they were already organizing to support endangered incumbents, including McConnell, and plan to do some "primarying" of their own, funding moderate GOP challengers to several tea party members of the House, including two Michigan Republicans, Justin Amash and Kerry Bentivolio.

The more this goes on, the more I'm reminded of 9/11. The reactionary Qaedans gripe with the U.S. was mostly peripheral to the larger issue of wanting to be taken seriously as an alternative to the neocolonial cronyism of the ruling class in Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and other similar countries. They pulled off that attack to bolster their populist street cred there. The reactionary TeaBaggers want to pull off this default to show the right side of the U.S. political spectrum that they are a credible and powerful alternative to the plutocratic cronyism of the big business lobby. They are pulling off this attack to show their populist street cred here.

What's so strange about this is that the only threat to America in this situation is the Tea Party. There was no external event or big story that resulted in this political reaction. There is no force causing this crisis except Tea Party's desire for it.

Muta:You know what will not shrink the federal budget? Defaulting! Defaulting on our debts will increase the interest rate we pay on the money we borrowed.

I probably shouldn't be, but I've been shocked, even in these threads, at how few people understand that raising the debt ceiling right now is about paying for things Congress already approved, not giving them room to approve new spending.

The predominant belief seems to be that Congress can't approve new spending unless there's room in the Treasury's spending authority even though the whole reason the current limit is being hit is because previous Congresses did exactly the opposite by approving spending they couldn't pay for.

It's no wonder go-tards like Cruz manage to get elected. People have absolute no idea what's going on, no interest in learning, but they're very, very angry about it anyway.

parasol:The one I've seen most often?It is forcing people to buy something they "can't afford and don't want" - and it is a tax -Tea People don't want taxes - esp for things they (see above) - rinse, repeat

Right because there are people in their right mind who think they are immortal and will never need health insurance and also don't care about their precious tax dollars going to people who get free health care through the ER and other means.

The Stealth Hippopotamus:I've never understood how representatives being in line with their constituency is a bad thing.

That is kind of what representative means.

Politics is a balance between representing your constituents interest, and leading. The latter is convincing them that a course of action is in their best interest. It's a politicians job to have all of the facts on an issue, which may be a level of understanding that the layperson doesn't have. It's a balancing act.

Left to their own devices, people will always support more services, while not supporting the means to pay for them (See: California). Were they lying when they said they wanted more stuff, or were they lying when they said they wanted lower taxes? Or maybe, just maybe, they didn't understand that more stuff meant that they would have to pay more?

It's up to the politician to parse this and act accordingly. Its not nearly as clear as you're making it out to be.

Don't be too proud of this Tea Party terror you've constructed. The ability to attempt to destroy Obamacare is insignificant next to the power of people who have brain stems.

Really, serious question, what is the "given" reason for the obsession with stopping Obamacare? And don't tell me that it'll cost too much. We waste more money on defense spending on shiat that we'll never even use and foreign aid that doesn't benefit us in the least than we ever will on health care for our own citizens.

I think the number is a little higher then 10% or the representatives would just ignore them.

I think the loudest ones get the attention. Whether it is 1% or 90%.

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Doesn't mean that the Constituents know what they need.

yes the people are too stupid to rule themselves. Lets go with that. They are smart enough to be trusted with voting for the leaders of our government, but not smart enough to know about the issues. That's a very fine line to walk.

What we need in the desert is a lot different than what people in the Northeast need. In order to get what we want/need, our representative has to work with others. Compromise has to happen. It gets complicated quickly.

The Stealth Hippopotamus:I've never understood how representatives being in line with their constituency is a bad thing.That is kind of what representative means.

The problem is that about half their constituents have below-average intelligence.

Mentat:No, a representative is supposed to be a buffer between the mob and the levers of power. A representative represents his constituents views, but he also is supposed to temper their worst impulses.

Bingo. He is supposed to represent an advocate for the best interests of their district -- which is not necessarily the same thing as what most of the people in that district want.

I believe "think tank" is a bit gracious. But snark aside, it's not a factual definition of Heritage.

Demint's definitely a man to watch, though. It will be interesting to see how he chooses to balance his ideological backers (The Family, teabaggers, et al) and his financial backers. This fabricated crisis has made many of the latter reconsider this dangerous path.

Zeb Hesselgresser:Weaver95: Read up on the prosperity gospel sometime. That's the biggest theological faction among GOP evangelical groups within the party. A very toxic and corrupt variant of heretical christianity that justifies almost any action taken by the rich and powerful.

The Stealth Hippopotamus:Weaver95: No, I think its fair to characterize the GOP goals and idology as monsterous. They want to turn this country into a theocracy and force us to worship their gods. I'd call that pretty monsterous. ESP since theocracies tend to do very bad things to unbelievers and heretics.

You see that's why I like the Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and Marco Rubio of the party. A lot more smaller government talk with much less Jebus talk.

GhostFish:TV's Vinnie: The right wing hates poor people. The right wing wants poor people to starve, suffer, and die.

I think this is a bit hyperbolic, and ignores the more benevolent if misguided goals of the GOP.They don't want the poor to starve, suffer, and die. They just don't want the state to play such a large role in preventing it.They want the poor to find support through the charity of their local churches and communities, where they'll supposedly learn to be better people and improve their lives through learning to depend on God rather than the state. And they believe that the state should help promote that, rather than cutting out God as the middleman.

It's all horribly misguided and not supported by the numbers, history, or Constitutional law.But casting them as cruel monsters isn't going to help anything.

There are some Randian elements who probably do think along lines close to what you suggest. But they aren't representative of the whole right-wing. They've just worked their way to the top and to higher visibility by way of their sociopathic philosophy. If you're going to attack anyone, attack them. The rest of the right needs to see that these people have more in common with LaVeyan Satanism than Christianity.

No, I think its fair to characterize the GOP goals and idology as monsterous. They want to turn this country into a theocracy and force us to worship their gods. I'd call that pretty monsterous. ESP since theocracies tend to do very bad things to unbelievers and heretics.

There is something to that, but this is really just a smaller facet of the larger problem of rising debt (vs. growth) with the Cold War and the growing class inequality since the Vietnam War. The proximate issue may be the RR, but larger systemic issues are at the core.

Eddie Adams from Torrance:When I was younger it used to drive me crazy to watch the Democrats get soundly beaten by running on their most liberal ideas.

Meanwhile, the Republicans were the pragmatic ones, realizing that your platform doesn't matter at all if you can't manage to get yourself elected.

Somehow, the Democrats seemed to have learned this lesson while Republicans have gone full retard and then some.

I think we can blame the Religious Right TM for throwing the Republicans off track. You see you can't control a woman uterus if you believe in small government. You need a big government with lots and lots of power if you want to legislate morality! And in order to get that big overreaching government you need to tax the bejebus out of people to fund it.

So now you have both parties wanting to grow government and tax us. A lose-lose if you will.

The Stealth Hippopotamus:Clutch2013: I've been here long enough. Up to this point, you've presented yourself to be smarter than this.

Well are you going just cast aspersions or do you have something useful to say?

Do you really want to debate that the Religious Right has had a hold on the old GOP?

No. Why debate what's painfully obvious? And how did you jump to that conclusion?

How about debating that the RR doesn't want to control morality though legislation?

Again, no.

Oh wait, you think that the RR doesn't want more control!!

Both the RR and the modern day progressive Democrat have one thing in common, they believe they are better than you. You've seen it in this thread "morons" "they don't know what they are doing" "too stupid to know what is best for them". This leads to needing a large government to protect people from themselves, and trust me you need a really really big and intrusive government to protect someone from themselves.

And if there's one thing I can say about the Democratic individual, it's that he or she will be far less insulting to my intelligence and perhaps, however remote the possibility, open to actually modifying their world view in light of contradictory evidence. I can disagree with that individual completely and, at the end of the day, still leave the discussion not feeling like I've just spent a significant amount of time punching myself in the face AND not wishing horrible things on the other person.

I get where larger government is a bad thing. I really do. Most of what NYC's doing nowadays is enough to earn them hard stares from Tommy Lee Jones now and forevermore. Speed cameras and stupid shiat like that, sure. Knock yourself out. But healthcare? Seriously? Of all the things to rail against, is that really something that should be trapped under that spooky umbrella of things that make Republicans piss themselves in fright? Healthcare shouldn't be seen as "BIG GUBMINT!!!!111!!! RALLY TEH TRUPZ111!!!111!" It should be something we approach and embrace with open arms, because given enough time, it can start to mitigate and solve other, more remotely-related problems. Same thing goes for education. Same thing for reducing the amount of people that are homeless, or hungry. Same thing for trying to get jobs back that pay well and don't involve the words "You want fries with that?" I could go on and on, but the point/question is this: why in the flying fark is wanting to give people better situations "big gubmint"?

I'd rather have a laissez faire Democrat in power than a RR Republican any day of the week. But right now we don't have that option.

Thing about laissez faire is that it requires us to put an incredible amount of faith in the corporations. And no matter how benevolent they are or claim to be, at the end of the day, when it comes down to profits and doing the right thing, it's painfully obvious which way they're going to be kicking the pendulum.

The Teatards are a think tank? Don't you need some modicum of intelligence and education to be a think tank? The Tea Party is more like a tank of raw sewage, filled with all the verbal diarrhea that comes spewing out its collective mouths.

Zeb Hesselgresser:Weaver95: Read up on the prosperity gospel sometime. That's the biggest theological faction among GOP evangelical groups within the party. A very toxic and corrupt variant of heretical christianity that justifies almost any action taken by the rich and powerful.

Zeb Hesselgresser:Shakin_Haitian: Zeb Hesselgresser: Weaver95: Read up on the prosperity gospel sometime. That's the biggest theological faction among GOP evangelical groups within the party. A very toxic and corrupt variant of heretical christianity that justifies almost any action taken by the rich and powerful.

you need a hobby

Are you saying those people aren't real? You should check out late night and Sunday morning TV.

No, I'm saying they are not to be feared.

Do you realize how much money the prosperity gospel preachers have put into the republican party? Billions, that's the short answer. They are a very real threat to the rest of us.

The Stealth Hippopotamus:grumpfuff: You mean the same Rand Paul who just said there's a worldwide war on Christianity, and the duty of America is to protect Christians from Muslims?

I said less. And that's not exactly "God told me to" which frankly is the scariest thing a politician can say.

Well, maybe second to "We're from the government and we're here to help"

Take faith in Reagan's ancient campaign slogans, for they are true and righteous and wise. Never trust your own elected government and fill it only with men pledged to be its enemies. And buy lots of gold for when your society collapses into ruin.

GhostFish:maybe Left leaning individuals should swallow their pride and start throwing serious support and votes to the more moderate GOP candidates in red states.

Like who? And what does "moderate" mean? Temperament?

Take for example Jon Huntsman. Everybody's favorite "moderate." I understand he's a nice guy with pretty teeth and hair, but he has no substantive disagreements with Michell Bachmann.

Fact is candidates are just wrappers of personality. The only thing that really tells you anything about their policy positions is the party they belong to -- whether they have a crazed look in their eye or not. And the present GOP platform is nearly 100% unsupportable. Ergo, they'll get none of my votes.

It's now too easy for someone to fire up their eMachine and open up AOL and find their Congressperson's email and take virtual crayon in fist to bleat "Yew's gonna get piemarried if'n Fartbongocare interferes with my SSI Disability."

I'm not blaming the email writer, but the craven cowards who fire up the Confirmation Bias 5000 and say "See!! This person is saying what *everyone* is saying, and, I have a nice house and need my paycheck, so, nation be damned!"

Article V of the Constitution specifies that if the legislatures of two-thirds of the states petition Congress for a constitutional amendment, then Congress must call a convention for proposing amendments.

Between April 29, 1975 and January 29, 1980, 34 petitions from 30 different state legislatures were submitted to Congress on the subject of a Balanced Budget Amendment. The participating states were Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming.

Since 1980, two additional state legislatures have petitioned Congress for a convention for a Balanced Budget Amendment, bringing the total number of participating states to 32.If two additional state legislatures were to petition, then the required two-thirds majority of states would be reached (34 out of 50 states), and Congress will be forced to call a Constitutional Convention.

In reality, of course, when the next state petitions, Congress will be forced to enact such an amendment themselves and send it to the states for ratification, to prevent such Constitutional Convention possibly passing to the state other popular changes to the constitution they may not like.

In any event, I'm not sure this is the best political environment in which to attempt adopting a new Constitution by consensus.

A lot of my relatives who believe the Tea Party is not conservative enough have another supreme belief. If you want something to happen like say you want to not die of the cancer that is eating you. You just need to pray, kinda like the belief that to fix everything you just need to be more conservative. Well if praying didnt fix the cancer, then you were not praying hard enough.

For the record, I'm glad that walking embarrassment is no longer representing me. However, it is depressingly unsurprising that it is a Dixie doofus seeking to pull the country back to the simpler times of yore that never existed.